AirlinePilot wrote:JD, I thought you knew where we would be? Come on Mr Cornucopia! We'll be awash in the stuff!!!

Considering the EROEI of refining has been around 80:20 for the past century, probably worse in the past, we aren't looking at a very big drop in the total EROEI of oil's energetic products. The drop in the EROEI of extraction could have at worst dropped the EROEI of oil's refined energetic products, assuming refinery efficiency was the same in the past as it is now, which is unlikely AFAIK, from ~79:21 in 1930 to ~77:23 in 1970, and to ~72:28 as of 2000.

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."

the NOAA url in the credits link above might have to be copied by hand, but this link was taken off the website I posted in my first reply.

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."

The estimated total energy cost of shale gas extraction is thus in the approximate range of 30 to 35 billion Btu while the estimated ultimate energy produced is in the range of 2.6 trillion to nearly 5 trillion Btu. The ratio of energy produced to energy expended for shale gas based on the approaches outlined above is thus at least 70 and perhaps well over 100. This is extremely good relative to the probable EROEI values for other current energy sources.

Last edited by copious.abundance on Mon 27 Jun 2011, 18:25:58, edited 1 time in total.

Stuff for doomers to contemplate:http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767

There, I fixed the title. All I did was copy the author's writing. But if you did more than just read the title (which obviously you didn't) you'd discover he did that on purpose:

A valuable measure of a fuel’s usefulness and long-term viability is its energy return on (energy) investment (EROI)

Looks like p-the-starr is all upset. What a pity. After all, this guy just demonstrated we've recently found ourselves a whole bunch of low-hanging fruit - to use a common p-the-starr phrase.

Now isn't it funny: When some new "high-hanging fruit" is discovered p-the-starr is quick to point out its height from the ground. But when somebody proves a whole bunch of low-hanging fruit just got discovered, p-the-starr goes into a hissy fit of denial.

Stuff for doomers to contemplate:http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767

The problem is economic contraction won’t be able to support the energy input expense for more exploration, drilling and conversion to uses of shale gas.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt

OilFinder2 wrote:When some new "high-hanging fruit" is discovered p-the-starr is quick to point out its height from the ground. But when somebody proves a whole bunch of low-hanging fruit just got discovered, p-the-starr goes into a hissy fit of denial.

But is it really low hanging fruit? Or has the industry been playing fast and loose with the numbers to draw in investors?

Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States. But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry emails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells.

“Money is pouring in” from investors even though shale gas is “inherently unprofitable,” an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote to a contractor in a February email. “Reminds you of dot-coms.” “The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work,” an analyst from IHS Drilling Data, an energy research company, wrote in an email on Aug. 28, 2009. Company data for more than 10,000 wells in three major shale gas formations raise further questions about the industry’s prospects. There is undoubtedly a vast amount of gas in the formations. The question remains how affordably it can be extracted.

The data show that while there are some very active wells, they are often surrounded by vast zones of less-productive wells that in some cases cost more to drill and operate than the gas they produce is worth. Also, the amount of gas produced by many of the successful wells is falling much faster than initially predicted by energy companies, making it more difficult for them to turn a profit over the long run. If natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills.

“I think we have a big problem.” Deborah Rogers, a member of the advisory committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, recalled saying those words in a May 2010 telephone call to a senior economist at the Reserve. “We need to take a close look at this right away,” she added. A former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch, Rogers said she started studying well data from shale companies in October 2009 after attending a speech by the chief executive of Chesapeake, Aubrey McClendon. The math was not adding up, Rogers said. Her research showed that wells were petering out faster than expected. “These wells are depleting so quickly that the operators are in an expensive game of ‘catch-up,’” Rogers wrote in an email on Nov. 17, 2009, to a petroleum geologist in Houston, who wrote back that he agreed. “This could have profound consequences for our local economy,” she explained in the email. Fort Worth residents were already reeling from the sudden reversal of fortune for the natural gas industry.That boom-and-bust volatility had raised eyebrows among people like Rogers, as well as energy analysts and geologists, who started looking closely at the data on wells’ performance.

Some doubts about the industry are being raised by people who work inside energy companies, too. “Our engineers here project these wells out to 20-30 years of production and in my mind that has yet to be proven as viable,” wrote a geologist at Chesapeake in a March 17 email to a federal energy analyst.

I followed a few of the links back to the source of the big extrapolated total production figures which of course the good return numbers rely on - one looks like a webinar presentation to landowners about the ins and outs of leasing land to the drillers - I'm not sure of the impartiality of that source.

Another source is the eia and the link is dead.

One other thing,

A cumulative production estimate[22] for a typical Marcellus shale well for a 10-year period of 2.11 billion cubic feet was extrapolated to a 25-year period, yielding an estimate of approximately 2.9 billion cubic feet.

Isn't one of the questions about fracking that it has a steep drop in production after a few years? Has that problem been eliminated or was it never a problem?

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.-- Abraham Lincoln

Pops wrote:I followed a few of the links back to the source of the big extrapolated total production figures which of course the good return numbers rely on - one looks like a webinar presentation to landowners about the ins and outs of leasing land to the drillers - I'm not sure of the impartiality of that source.

Another source is the eia and the link is dead.

LOL

Also note that over 10% of his citations are to WIKIPEDIA. It's not even worth debunking this garbage.

Let's look at this guy's creds, shall we? After all, some certain unnamed person(s) participating in this thread have, in the past, demonstrated a preference for calculations and analysis from people who are up to snuff.

It's clear there's way more going on than initial perceptions reveal. With luck some of the skills I've gained in my varied career will help me see a little deeper.

Interests

* And education? Ph.D. in environmental science.

So, the guy has a PhD in environmental science, and works in the environmental field. I did a google search for his name and came up with this

Dr. Mike Aucott has a Ph.D. in environmental sciences from Rutgers University, and works with NJDEP’s Division of Science, Research, & Technology. His work includes development of inventories of New Jersey emissions of greenhouse gases and researching potential impacts of climate change on the State. He currently heads up the Trends Team, which is responsible for development and regular updating of measurements and related trends relevant to the condition of the environment in New Jersey. The Trends Team maintains and updates the Environmental Trends report on the NJDEP/DSRT web site, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/trends2005/ . Mike has also developed inventories of New Jersey emissions of mercury, and has investigated releases of mercury from broken fluorescent tubes and has helped examine ways to minimize mercury releases to the environment from a variety of sources.

So, I think it's fair to say this guy is more qualified to make a calculation such as this than ... probably 99% of this forum.

Stuff for doomers to contemplate:http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767

OilFinder2 wrote:So, I think it's fair to say this guy is more qualified to make a calculation such as this than ... probably 99% of this forum.

He's an environmental scientist that works in mercury and greenhouse gas emissions. 99%+ of environmental scientists haven't a clue about complex, nuanced energy calculations.

News flash: just because someone with a PhD starts an amateur blog and posts a few paragraphs with citations to WIKIPEDIA doesn't mean his drivel is any more authoritative than Shorty's posts at PO.com.

Appeal to authority, OF, that's always your backstop, "they" will think of something "they" are smarter than you doomers. I'd guess a large proportion here have much less faith in authorities than you. I in fact have no degree, still I say the guys sources suck.

But anyway your guy doesn't say "Hey I have a degree so believe!" No, he bases his conclusions not on his diploma but cites outside sources, the sources I mentioned that seem kinda shaky.

So defend the guy, go look up his sources, get some untainted sources we the great unwashed can't poke fun at, it's your thread, if you aren't going to defend it why go to the trouble of posting?

Heck I don't even think EROI is that big a deal in the near term, it's more about if the I is getting an R on his money.

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.-- Abraham Lincoln